Since I mentioned this briefly last week, I saw on CNN this morning that some junior pyro has admitted to starting one of the California wilfires. See Juvenile admits starting fire that burned 38,000 acres. Maybe Gov. Schwarzenegger will grant him immunity.
Second, I saw that Latham is giving its clerks the same $50,000 signing bonus. Since I am in the midst of this whole process, I can state, definitively, that such bonuses are being taken into consideration. Particularly when they are paid, in full (after taxes), the day after your clerkship. The thing I am anxious to hear is how long you have to work in order to keep the bonus... I've heard between 1 and 2 years, but have not gotten a straight answer. Probably because most, including myself, are confident that they will be working for said BigLaw well past whatever this deadline purports to be.
If there are current second-year associates who just finished their clerkship last year and have started (although I suspect some are starting tomorrow), I am anxious to hear about the whole integration into the firm culture and how the clerkship has helped thus far.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
California wildfires have a culprit; hopefully his parents have good insurance...and lawyers
Monday, October 29, 2007
Various legal conundrums and bad reporting
First rule of appellate clerking: Don't spend in excess of five hours working on something if the trial court hasn't addressed it first. I can assure that I won't do that again.
Since a lot of legal stuff has been on the news as of late, I thought I would comment on two or three recent articles that caught my attention. Some thoughts on Blackwater and the Genarlow Wilson case appear at the end of this entry.
The first is the one that said "U.S. Supreme Court lets Liz Taylor keep van Gogh painting." Well, this caught my attention for the obvious reasons. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the advertising cookies that were deposited into my cache), the article title is very misleading, at least from a court perspective. First, as the article reports, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't do anything but deny cert. While the effect is the same, as any lawyer knows, the denial of cert. doesn't mean anything except that the circuit court ruling is upheld. I need not dwell on this point further other than to express my disappointment that I was duped into clicking onto the article
Second, this whole Blackwater thing. See Immunity Deal Hampers Blackwater Inquiry. While I am not working on anything to do with this particular case, there may be some issues involved that could intersect with various things I am working on, so in a public forum and to remain consistent with my other posts and current commentary dialog, I will simply state that the Blackwater contracts as reported throughout the news are certainly interesting on all legal and academic levels. Personally, I think that mercenaries have been used in wars since Roman times, so I'm not sure exactly how, if at all, this issue can be resolved.
Third, and this is the most interesting case from an appellate court standpoint. Genarlow Wilson of Georgia got caught up in a legal nightmare surrounding a party he went to as a teenager. Although it looked like it was finally over back in June, the State of Georgia decided to appeal. After years of fighting the good fight, justice has finally prevailed and the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, let him go. See Genarlow Wilson: Plea Deal would have left me without a home and the WSJ's Blog regarding that the voided sentence. I'm not sure I would call this "real, strange news" as the WSJ columnist suggests. In fact, I'm not endorsing the coverage of either of these articles. The Atlanta Journal Constitution does a pretty good job covering it, but the link to what you are looking for is right here, and you can read it for yourself. Wilson v. State. The Supreme Court of Georgia also posts their own press release about it. Read both and judge for yourself.
I will reserve any comment about it because I haven't read the opinion, but from my own following of the case, I would suspect that the court reached the correct result. By contrast, I will state that the whole "evolving standards of decency" standard is too mushy for my liking, and the mushiness appears to have helped Wilson win his argument. I guess in a few months, the whole world will know out how exactly the Framer's intended "cruel and unusual" to mean. Enough for now.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
California Wildfires
There are probably ten entries I need to write about based on the events of the last week. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I get to tag along to a conference that will take me away from my precious internet and westlaw research for the next couple of days. It is not a conference in California, but since that's all the news is about nowadays, I thought I would express my sympathies toward the mass migration that is going on at the west coast. I hear that more people have had to temporarily evacuate than during Hurricane Katrina.
If this does turn out to be completely arson related, which is a sad commentary in itself, what remedy does anyone really have against this person or persons? I saw the government is offering a $50k reward, but how fast would that person or persons declare bankruptcy and shield themselves from any lawsuits the thousands of insurance companies would bring? Regardless, I see the wildfires as causing a bigger problem based in part of the subprime crisis currently dragging our economy through the mud.
While I have no understanding of the mortgage business other than what I saw on the news and learned in part in a couple property classes, I have no idea whether it's a safe assumption that the mortgage would be essentially subrogated to an insurance payout. Or are these two different things? If someone could point me in the direction of a site that actually explains this in layman's terms, that would be great. In the meantime, I guess all Chargers fans are going to have to hope that some Cardinal fans help fill the stands this weekend.
Also, what is it like over in California right now? I'm left only with limited commentary on the internet and Yahoo answers. Any west coasters that feel like commenting on the situation, feel free to contribute by posting a comment.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
NBC Rewind back to its mediocre quality
I added this in a comment yesterday, and so that various internet searchers are not confused, I revoke my previous entry praising NBC Rewind and the quick turnaround of quality with NBC's online system. Apparently it was only temporary. Upon watching the Office and Earl the other day, NBC's Rewind was back to its old sucky self. Luckily these two somewhat conflicting entries aren't court decisions or else the court would look fairly silly in its quick and contradictory judgments. Fortunately with my court (and my career for that matter), I only make snap judgments about television shows and the ways to watch them.
Part of its problem with NBC's Rewind, I believe, is that its interface is just not as simple as some of the other networks'. I'm convinced now that it must either vary with show, or it varies with the time you watch it. In either case, only the latter is remotely acceptable as far as quality control goes. I'm not going to waste anymore time on complaining or praising NBC's Rewind. Suffice to say, ABC's system is superior to either of the other four networks, and if you don't feel like watching it through NBC, there are other options (e.g., YouTube), which may or may not be affiliated with the network. I'm beginning to think there is some merit in watching television shows online, and I can only wonder where fair use falls on this spectrum if you don't use the affiliate channels. Only time and a couple lawsuits will tell.
Back to football.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Ellen's pound puppy and the mixing of law and business without any pleasure
Since all the radio has been talking about lately is this nonsense with Ellen DeGeneres and her adopted dog, Iggy, I thought I would chime in with how I would have approached this if I were the adoption agency and why I think that legally, they probably are right, and from a marketing and business, questionably wrong. For fun though, I will say that they have the potential of being just as well-off, if not better once this hot air blows over.
Basically, Ellen adopted a dog, the dog didn't get alone with her cats, and so she gave the dog away to one of her friends. See Outrage Over Iggy, but Not Brit's Kids and Attorney for Group that Set Up DeGeneres Dog Adoption Speaks Out. Apparently, like most pet adoption agencies, there is a contract that the adopted owner signs. According to the radio this morning, these provisions exist because the adoption agencies take in a lot of abused animals and part of the adoption process is to ensure that these animals are placed in good homes. Ellen must have signed this contract in order to get the dog. Obviously. (Hint: Ellen loses at the end of this story.)
One of the provisions of the contract says something along the lines that if you don't want the dog, you have to give it back. Obviously the rational basis behind this provision is that it protects the dog and allows the agency to find them a better home in case owner A (Ellen) doesn't work out. By subverting this contract, Ellen is in breach. I don't think anyone disputes this. The law is on the side of the pet agency.
But, like most people who fight over contracts that don't work out or contain some provision that wasn't understood, Ellen decided to tell her tale of woe to her viewing public. And, like most of the public that doesn't understand these things, they have jumped on her side. Sympathy, however, doesn't change the clear terms of the contract.
From a business side though, the bad press that Ellen has generated from this incident can't be that good for the above mentioned pet agency, for now. And apparently there have been death threats, etc. Silliness. I won't be surprised if they take her to task for some sort of privacy claim, which ultimately settles out for Ellen to give some free positive publicity to the company. Or lots of money.
Days from now, nobody is going to remember this stupid story. If anything, I'm sure it has increased awareness for adopting animals and the reasons why some adoption agencies are strict about these sorts of things. And I'm sure that this pet company could weather this storm. If not, that's just more fodder for the case against Ellen.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
NBC rewind has done a 180 from its previously poor quality
Edit: This entry has been overruled by a different entry. Read this for humor; read the newer one for the true perspective.
I've always liked NBC's programming (for the most part) and am glad that most of their shows are available online (if not all of them that I watch, as compared to the other networks that limit their selection for nonsensical reasons). In watching most of these shows (e.g., Heroes, Journeyman for another couple weeks, The Office, etc.), I've been quite vocal at times in my complaints regarding how NBC's efforts at online broadcasting have been less than stellar. My own internet research shows that I am not alone in this belief.
To recapitulate my complaint, I specifically made this comment on Oct. 6: "Fortunately or unfortunately, NBC again has failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the tech savvy generation of which I am a part. Similar to my complaints from last year, I can only simply voice my concern on the internet with their online entertainment division, and hope that the higher ups at GE hire somebody new." Based on my viewing of yesterday's Heroes episode, it appears that NBC finally took my advice to heart.
Quite surprisingly, NBC, in the course of one week, figured out how to distribute online media without sacrificing the costs of producing/broadcasting the shows (e.g., commercials). Yes, it's hard to believe. Basically, they have changed the commercial structure to emulate Youtube's viral video strategy. The spots are made specifically for the internet and (almost) completely tracked toward the timing of their placement during the show's timeline (as opposed to the previous commercials which were rebroadcasts of crummy regular commercials).
For example, the second to last spot says something to the effect of "Enjoy the final part of the show." Of course, they had one more after that, but at least they are attempting to compensate for their previous incompetence. These are short, non-intrusive commercials that do not change the volume or interrupt the feed of the show (other than the 30-second commercial itself). Additionally, there is only one commercial, at indicated times (as compared to NBC's pathetic attempt to throw multiple commercials at "non-scheduled" times in earlier rebroadcasts this season). I can't say that it will direct me to buy the product, but I'm sure this particular campaign should prove successful.
From a marketing perspective, however, I can state without reservation that this is the correct strategy for the current online market. Because of the nature of the commercial, the content and javascript directs the viewer to that sponsor's website and even employs a clever internet strategy in the process. I'm not going to give any lip service to this particular sponsor because they can pay me for advertising just as well as they can pay NBC, and they have not, so I will not. Nevertheless, I would venture to say that it is just a matter of time before the rest of the networks employ similar online commercial strategies. Of course, ABC has already figured out this tactic on similar grounds, so maybe NBC took my advice and hired someone who understands the internet medium a little better than the last person. Now if they will only listen to my product placement suggestions.
So, I will say that NBC's Rewind has gotten a little better. I'm not ready to give it a ringing endorsement, but it certainly is ten times better than it has been.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The fun of really researching an issue
One thing that I miss from my law review days is the ability to commiserate and complain about various authors' "suggestions" and "papers" (and "ideas") to my fellow board members. As a clerk, the only comparable experience is with the written "briefs" and the "ideas" contained therein to my fellow clerks. But that is not my point to this particular entry. Unlike law school, where you can discuss various aspects of the legal world with your study group or other law school friends or professors, your ability to do so is limited to the court in which you work. And depending on your court rules and judge, maybe it's limited to your chambers. I certainly respect and understand the confidentiality and reasoning behind such rules, but it makes for that much more ground work and hope that your reasoning on a complex issue is right. And in the end, if you're wrong, I guess that gives the academic world something to write about.
In that sense it's no different than how you do work around a firm. Unlike the firm though, the universe of people you can bounce work-related ideas off of is much smaller (acknowledging the universe in a firm is small as it is). It's frustrating in some senses that you see or read something interesting related to a case you are working on and are duty bound not to talk about it. I guess that's the experience that a firm pays for when you get hired post-clerkship. Nevertheless, it's pretty annoying. Less may be more, but sometimes you need more in order to say less if that makes any sense.
On a related note, I saw that the AP wire had picked up a story on something I had worked on (this was last week or the week before, and left over from last year's clerk, but still). It's funny reading things written by a non-lawyer trying to interpret a legal document. Oh, the things you miss, AP reporter. Of course, I also remember a former clerk telling me about some commentator's blog entry about a case, and she told me that the blogger totally got caught up on a sentence in the case that was utterly unimportant to the issues. To both types of interpreters, I can only say that with my various entries, I try and explain things the best I can. With my opinions, I obviously put a lot more effort in. I think the key word with published stuff is "effort." If the WSJ can't do it, I'm not sure what the average newspaper reader is being led to believe. I would venture to say that the answer is "whatever the writer wants the reader to believe." Such biased reporting is fine for blogs, I guess, but somewhere along the line, I think the newspaper has lost its focus. Speaking of which, this entry is long enough and football is about to come on.
In more cheerful news (and unrelated to the topic at hand), a couple of my friends who took the Virginia bar tell me that the results are due out by the end of the week. According to the Virginia Board of Bar examiners website, they are due out Oct. 18. My friends who took Texas, South Carolina and the remaining states still are a few more weeks away, but the day to announce whether or not I passed the bar is certainly inching closer.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Behind the Scenes of an Appellate Court: Clerkship 101
Someone posted a question asking me to describe what my experience as a clerk has been so far. I think if you ask any clerk about their clerkship experience, you're going to get a different story every time. Obviously my story will get better as the year goes on, but I am happy to give my take on my first month of working behind the scenes of an appellate court.
Compared to working in a firm, the first big difference is that you aren't accountable for your time (for the most part). You have plenty of work to do to keep you busy, and obviously organization helps, but you can spend as little or as long as you want on an issue. As long as you get your assignments done on time, with everything perfect, you're doing great. So, in that sense, it is like doing work for a partner or associate; on the other, it's very academic. If you like that sort of thing, you should consider doing a clerkship for a year.
For federal clerkships, I know there is a real trend in working for two or three years before going applying or doing a district court clerkship first, but if you have strong credentials, you will still be fine and still have a good shot. Only about half of the people you'll work with who will be a little older (besides the secretaries and judges). For state clerkships, I think it's a little different, but from my friends who are clerks in state courts, most are right out of law school or clerked somewhere else for a year first. In either case, you will need to have a high GPA, be or have been on a law review, and have an ability to communicate why you want to be a clerk. Once you're in the door, and have accepted your offer, the question turns to this: What's it like to be a clerk? Here's my answer. I'm sure for trial court clerks, their answers would vary.
As far as the learning curve and workload, it all depends. The first month has had some long days, and some shorter days (no golfing days yet). I think the first thing you need to pick up quick is how your judge (and your court) writes. The easiest way to do that is to find opinions that have been previously written in the same area of law that you are working on. For novel things, I usually try and pattern other well-written opinions (or at least ones that seem to be well-written). The faster you can pick up on your judge's writing style, the faster you will get to the top of the curve. Of course, you'll always have to take the edits you are given and learn from them. I would say that it's a work in progress. As far as technical stuff, get used to using short, concise sentences in the active voice.
As far as whether I think I was prepared for the clerkship when it started, I would say I was. Of course, working as an articles editor certainly helped with the bluebook aspect of things, but each court has its own nuances that you have to pick up. For the most part, courts follow the bluebook, so I would make sure that you learn as much as you can from the senior members of your law review if you have any interest in clerking. Of course, there's probably a judge in the court that is far superior to you in editing and can help you out if need be.
Would I have done anything different so far? I think it's too early to tell. Personally, I'm pretty organized, so I can schedule my work day around my assignments fairly easily. Of course, you never know what comes up that needs to be taken care of, so you have to be able to switch gears at a moment's notice. You should also be nice to all the clerks and secretaries. They have been there longer than you, and will remember you if you're good, and even more if you're a jerk.
Is my judge easy to work with? Yes. The most important thing you are looking to get out of the clerkship is mentoring, so if you're personable, it should be easy to get along with most judges. Some judges are more personable than others though, so every clerkship will be different. I'm sure some judges are harder to work with than others, and that's the nature of the working world anyway. I think you just have to hope to luck out. For the most part, you should. One of the most rewarding things you'll get out of the clerkship is the conversations with the judge about the law.
Will you learn a lot? Absolutely. If anything, you'll get an appreciation for how the court thinks about things. You'll also see how ... diverse lawyer's writing styles are. I think you'll be, let's say, surprised at the range of briefs you'll get. You'll be a better writer by the end of your clerkship, that's a guarantee.
I think that's enough for now. The only other thing I would say is important is to get along with all your co-clerks. Dating them is another post for another day. Either way, they are in the same boat with you and pretty much the extent of your social circle for this year of your life.
I'm happy to write about any other questions. Post away.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Clerks, benefits, resumes, and post-bar life
One of my friends who clerks for one of the district courts (who has since passed the bar of her state) tells me that a lot of her non-law school friends have been asking, "Well, what kind of work are you going to do now that you passed the bar?" To which she replies (to the effect of): "I work as a clerk, I'll do that until the clerkship is over." And the reaction is, unsurprisingly, one of utter confusion. As a clerk, are you a lawyer? Yes and no. Of course, that answer is of no help either.
Honestly, I've just about given up trying to explain what a clerkship is, and to some degree, even the prestige of the clerkship is lost on someone who has never gone to law school. Thus, my answer to my friend's questions about what it is I do is more along the lines of, "it's sort of a one-year transition job some law students do after law school." This seems to be get rid of most of the confusion. I have yet to come up with the question I hope to get from my friends once I (hopefully) get my bar results: "So what are you going to do now that you're a lawyer." Again, the answer, "my clerkship" would likely invoke the same dazed and confused look.
Speaking of MBE scores, this same friend reported that the raw curve for the 2007 MBE was 16 points, give or take one or two points. I still say this is unsubstantiated, but I would say she is credible. Apparently the score report, however, doesn't go into any other detail than that. More info on the MBE will be posted in the future once I get the actual results.
Part of the reason I am writing this particular entry is because I recently got the chance to look at some of the resumes of those who applied for a clerkship in my court and did or did not get an acceptance to interview (or the clerkship for that matter). Having worked in the resume business to a certain degree before law school, and assisting my friends with their resumes during law school, I was nevertheless shocked at the resumes, cover letters, writing samples, and letters of recommendation about. Here are my top 5 things for those applying to clerkships in the future should think about.
First. Don't say you're an excellent writer and can benefit from this clerkship and then use incorrect grammar in the next sentence. That are a ding. Also, don't spell the judge's name wrong. Seriously. I would love to see if this happens at firms as well, and I'm sure their reaction is much less amusing.
Second. If your GPA is low, that's okay. I'll find it on your transcript. Failure to attach your transcript, however, leads me to think that your GPA must be really bad and therefore results in a ding. To be honest, the first thing I looked at was GPA (which directed how closely I looked at the rest of your resume package). The second thing I looked at was your undergraduate school and GPA (since I've met enough jokers from Harvard that I am convinced that the next generation of law students taught by these future professors is in big trouble). Law school was third. Recommendations and publications were next....
Third. I've read hundreds of recommendation letters. I could write an entire separate entry on what makes a good letter and what makes a bad letter, and perhaps someday I will. In the meantime, I am convinced that most law professors (and I emphasize most) are very bad at explaining why or why not a candidate is qualified to clerk. I suspect this is because most students make no efforts to talk to the professor outside of trying to get some insight into the final. Perhaps ironically, professors seem to remember this sparse interaction and decide, for whatever reason, that this is a good thing to write in their letters of recommendation. It is not. Please use recommendations of people who know you beyond your grade. Otherwise... DING.
Fourth. I am more impressed with someone that is published (since how many law review students are published a year, one or two for each journal?). You should selectively apply to judges who may have an interest in your publication, but it is impressive nonetheless. For those of you who aren't published, that's not a deal breaker, but you should have a second short paragraph accompanying your unpublished work giving me a brief synopsis of it. SSRN hits, while interesting to put on a resume, are almost laughable, so I wouldn't recommend taking up the space.
Fifth and last on this short list (since there are probably five or six more things I also consider). The cover letter is important, but not that important. I read all of them first, so I want some sort of short summary of why you are applying and why you want to take a year off from "real" work and clerk. Unsurprisingly, I could care less that you are "applying to clerk in your chambers because [you] think it will benefit [your] career." I am much more interested in something more than a conclusory thought. All I can say is get some disinterested person who is law trained to read it and give you an objective opinion. You may be surprised at the insight you get with a little help.
My last point is that you need to be able to convey, within the few minutes that I am spending looking over your resumes, why you want to be a clerk. At least then, you may have a good answer for when your friends ask you the same question from the non-legal end of things.
Any other clerks want to put their two cents in? Feel free to share in the comment box.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Marion Jones returns her medals
I haven't really followed this story that much, but since the news can't seem to get enough of it, I figured I would add one thought to the mix that I haven't seen yet. See Marion Jones pleads guilty to lying to federal investigators about steroids. I find the whole timing issue very odd, and maybe it's just from not reading the stories that much. If this all took place from two or three years ago, why is she deciding to come clean now, after vehemently denying all of the allegations when the story was "hot?" I'm sure there's much to this story that isn't written. Regardless, I see her bigger problem as not being the loss of respect from fans, etc. or her name stricken from the record books. I see her problem with the federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges that could follow.
Of course, the promise to not pursue such penalties was probably part of her deal. And I recognize that prosecutors have to make deals all the time to get what they want. Take a look at that prosecutor that made the joker do push-ups last week in exchange for a dismissal (this is not his blog, but one that made a funny comment about it). See Defendant does pushups, charges against him dropped.
I really don't have a point to this other than to express my disappointment with the way this whole thing has gone down, primarily from a former athlete's perspective. I guess it's good that her integrity kicked in, albeit a little delayed, but at the same time, it cuts against the whole spirit of competition (I think). Perhaps I am being naive. One of my friends made a point about the Floyd Landis issue and said that the IOC penalties are much more strict than they are in, say, the NFL. If Landis was a football player, he would be suspended for the same steroids for a game or two. Although I think my friend is mistaken on the time and penalties (and I'm too lazy to go look them up), I think his point is on target. There is a double standard in the athletic world right now. And, as any second or third year law student is well aware, double standards are easy to exploit. I'm just anxious to see how this one plays out on the legal landscape.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Pushing Daisies: Pielette review
Another reviewer does a much more distinct and better job in reviewing this show than I will. Nevertheless, I will give my quick first impressions of ABC's new show, Pushing Daisies. It is, almost exactly as I had predicted earlier, a fairy tale of sorts into the life of a pie maker who can bring the dead back to life. I don't think it's worth watching more than once or twice though. Some spoilers and my overall take on the series follows.
The main character, Ned (Lee Pace), has the ability of bringing the dead back to life. If he touches them again, they die. If he doesn't, they live until he does, and someone else dies to take the place in the great balance that must be exist between life and death. Ned supplements his income as a pie store owner by working with Private Detective Emerson Cod (Chi McBride, who played the principal on Boston Public). Together, they reincarnate murder victims, just long enough to find out who killed them, and collect the reward money. Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) plays a waitress that takes care of Ned's dog and has a crush on him. Not sure exactly where this part of the story is going, and it is unimportant to the show. Similarly unimportant is the storyline with the two reclusive aunts.
When Ned was younger, he discovered his ability the same day he realized that he had a crush on his neighbor, British hottie Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). In what will certainly be a plot line in an upcoming episode, Ned and Charlotte are connected because Ned brought his mother back to life, for longer than a minute, which led to Charlotte's father's untimely death. Ned's mother died that same day when she kissed him goodnight. Young Ned and Charlotte kissed each other at their parents' funerals, and that was the last time they touched or saw each other until Charlotte's untimely death by strangling/drowning years later.
Basically, Ned brings Charlotte back to life, and because of his child crush, decides to keep her alive. The trade off, and what drives the story, is that they now have an unspoken connection, which they cannot physically express. Unfortunately, I think that's the part of the show that will ultimately be its undoing. But it's certainly a unique storyline that will probably last six or twelve episodes. I may watch a couple more, but probably not regularly.
If you liked the show Dead Like Me (which is also produced by Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller), you'll probably find that this show has similar themes. It also has very Tim Burton-esque use of color and storytelling, which is also rare on television. I just don't think it has the same plot that can make it into a viable romantic drama. I can tell you with near certainty that the show will end with Ned dying, and the girl kissing him, which kills her again, so they ultimately wind up together. Or, they will cop out and he will lose his power and they will get together. In either case, the inability of them to actually get together without sacrificing the premise of the show will preclude the viewers from being able to truly relate. This will translate to low ratings and a change in timeslot before the show ultimately is laid to rest in DVD land or in a made-for-DVD movie that wraps up the show and ties up all loose ends. Neither does this show have the "Ugly Betty" factor that could lead to surprise ratings and success.
I would recommend you to watch this show once or twice to get a perspective of creative writing, but not for much more. It does give me hope that someday I'll be able to meet a British hottie though, since they seem to be appearing more and more on tv (e.g., Michelle Ryan as the new Bionic Woman). If only I can find such a smart, pretty British national on the east coast...
NBC's online Rewind... sucks
Because of my work schedule and clerk social life on Thursday nights, I've had to watch The Office online through NBC's Rewind website rather than on tv at its regular time. While the plus side of being able to watch both The Office and My Name is Earl online without legal repercussions (see, e.g., Jury (unsurprisingly) finds against woman in music download case), I have to say that NBC's rewind site is almost as bad as watching the show in real time on tv. At least CBS puts their new shows on demand, why can't the other networks?
With NBC's Rewind, you now have to watch at least two commercials now instead of one (although even that is pretty inconsistent). One commercial is bad enough, and you can hit mute on that one; the second comes blaring out and there's nothing you can do about it but take off your headphones until it's over. In this sense, ABC's online system is much better and less obstructive. I would even go as far as to say that NBC's Amazon partnership system is a lot better and probably easier for them to track data, so I'm surprised they don't direct their site traffic to them instead of trying to host it themselves. One of my friends even suggested that they would rather just pay the dollar or two and watch it commercial free on itunes. I'm almost inclined to agree. In lieu of these mandatory online commercials, product placement works ten times better.
Fortunately or unfortunately, NBC again has failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the tech savvy generation of which I am a part. Similar to my complaints from last year, I can only simply voice my concern on the internet with their online entertainment division, and hope that the higher ups at GE hire somebody new.
On a related note, I plan on watching Pushing Daisies at some point during my long weekend, so I'll probably write up a review about it, probably later today since my Saturday night plans have been shifted to tomorrow. And I know I said I wouldn't watch My Name is Earl again, but it was on last week and the parts I saw were funny, so I caught up with it online, and sure enough, the two episodes so far are funnier than any of the episodes last season. It's still not as good as the first season, but there is hope.
The second episode of Journeyman (Friendly Skies) was okay enough to watch another but I think the show is going to lose me within a couple weeks because it is getting harder and harder to suspend disbelief for it (I mean, disappearing from an airplane, post-Sept. 11? And next week, the '89 SF earthquake? Come on).
Heroes, however, seems to be getting better (although I concede that it sort of seems like a rehashing of the first season storyline so far).
And, on a totally unrelated note, the HR Hero Blog continues to be updated with legal insight into the zany misadventures of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton branch. Check it out if you have any interest in employment law, it's quite enlightening. Not my cup of tea, but interesting nonetheless.
Friday, October 05, 2007
PA results give a hint as to the national MBE curve
A couple of my friends from undegrad (and probably a couple from law school) took and passed the PA bar, so good for them. They told me that the statistics released from the PA board of bar examiners told what the national MBE scores were. And sure enough, they did. See July 2007 PA bar passage statistics. While this doesn't answer the question about what the raw average for the July 2007 MBE was, it does say that the mean MBE scaled score for the national testing group was 143.73. Similarly, the scaled range went from 78-188.2.
If 143.73 was the curved average, I am even more curious as to what the raw average was. As soon as I get some confirmation or some results from someone, I'll post it. Given that the MBE average post-PMBR lawsuit was 136.88 in February 2007 and 143.29 in July 2006, I would argue that one way to read this is that they curved the July exam upwards. Without knowing what the raw scores were yet, though, it's hard to say.
Like I said, as soon as I get some sort of real results (which, most likely, are still six weeks or so away), I'll post it. Feel free to post a comment, though, with more updated information. Regardless, I stand by my assertion that PMBR is not worth the time or expense.
Supreme Court to tackle sentencing disparities
Among the other interesting cases on the U.S. Supreme Court docket this term is one dealing with the sentencing disparities between crack and powdered cocaine. While the nuances of the case are much more juicy, and academically and legally chock full of vitamins, the gist of this case is that it will shed an entirely new perspective on some of these sentences. For anyone who has worked in the court system, you are well aware of the guidelines and minimum mandatories and, as the Supreme Court (I predict) will point out, how certain drug crimes appear to have a disparate impact on insular minorities. Minimally (one would hope), it's going to give the judges at sentencing some of their flexibility back. I guess we'll have to wait a few months to figure out exactly how it comes down, but it certainly should give some appellate attorneys some new fodder to play with.
And for those of us in the appellate system, it should translate into many more hours of Westlaw research. So much fun...
And on a bar related note, one of my friends who took Pennsylvania will get the results today. A couple of my friends took and passed Delaware. Virginia is rumored to release as early as today or as late as next week. Maybe Cali and NY will join the rest of the country and get the results out before the end of the month. As soon as I get some MBE information from these successful bar passers, I will pass it along.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Sen. Craig debacle continues - but the Minnesota courts reject his claims
As it comes to no surprise (as I had indicated a few weeks earlier), the Minnesota courts rejected Senator Craig's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea. The opinion can be found here. Craig Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Denied. The opinion speaks for itself, but some of the more humorous lines include calling one of his arguments "illogical" and questioned the timing of his motion as being more politically-based than actually having merit.
I don't want to say that I called this one, but I did. What I find more funny (and disturbing) is how the distinguished gentlemen from Idaho, who originally announced his resignation, had the GOP back this up, then postponed it pending the withdrawal of his guilty plea, has now changed his mind yet again, and has decided to stay in the Senate after all, at least until he is voted out or thrown out. While I can't speak for his constituents back in Idaho or his fellow GOPers, I'm sure Sen. Craig can be confident that his opponents will be ringing this bell until the democratic process finally gets rid of him.
Maybe next, he'll decide to appeal it, which should make for much more entertaining and fruitless work for many. Regardless of when the affirmation of that appeal comes, if he decides to waste even more money, my comments on Sen. Craig will be finished with this entry.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Preliminary MBE results coming soon
My friends in the mid-atlantic clerkship circle forwarded me several emails and google chats today about the upcoming bar results. Apparently, the rumor is that Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Delaware bar results are all going to be out by the end of this week or at least before the Columbus Day holiday (which, us clerks as government employees, get off with the rest of the public service world). With all this talk, it has forced me to give some thought to that test that I took a couple months ago. But, as it always seems to come back to this truism: there's not much anyone can do now, including worrying, because what is done is done, and all of this should have taken place right before that last full week in July. For me, I feel that I did everything I could have, so I'll be at a loss if I do wind up failing. I can only hope that is not the case.
One blog has a thread riddled with pure speculation as to the MBE results, but nothing concrete. From my own relevant Google search, I found very little except an even wider range of speculation. The recurring number seems to be around 126 raw with a 15 point curve, but again, this is pure speculation. I have friends that took some of the bars that are due out this week, and (fingers crossed) that they did well (and got the distribution), I'll post the information about the MBE as soon as I get it. At worse, the national curve may not be released until New York's results are posted after Thanksgiving (the last jurisdiction to do so it seems).
High school t-shirt cleverness and mayhem
An video article on CNN caught my eye this morning and I thought I would make a quick remark before heading on to work. The senior class of '08 at a high school in New Hampshire has a senior class t-shirt that reeks of double entendre. See Class of '08 T-shirts Spark Controversy at New Hampshire High School.
Basically, the t-shirt has High School Seniors written on the front, with "High" in large caps. On the back is "08" with the mascot's paw print (similar to the Penn State paw) next to the 08, so from a distance, it looks like ".08" which is the legal drinking limit in New Hampshire. And just to make it even clearer how clever this designer is, the phrase "Pushing the Limit" is written underneath their class year. If I could figure out how to post pictures on this thing, I certainly would put this on here for posterity.
Regardless, the t-shirt has pissed a lot of people off, and for no reason. It's a t-shirt people! Don't you remember the Big Johnson t-shirts from long ago? (the ones on that link are not nearly as funny or subtle as they used to be). If the high school is that concerned about it, why not just ban them. Frankly, I'm surprised no other high school class has come up with this. The designer (who I can only hope patented his idea) will make a fortune on this shirt. There's not a college, frat or senior class of '08 who won't have at least 10 members want to buy this. Look for it soon on ebay. And to the superintendent who is thinking, this isn't funny, I can only hope he is saying that as a public figure and to himself is thinking, yes it certainly is.
